ArticleComputers in biology and medicine2024
Machine learning interpretability methods to characterize the importance of hematologic biomarkers in prognosticating patients with suspected infection.
Article in Computers in biology and medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A complete blood count-based machine learning model for rapid differentiation of aplastic anemia, immune thrombocytopenia, and myelodysplastic syndromes in routine clinical practice.Practical laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- The role of artificial intelligence in sepsis in the Emergency Department: a narrative review.Annals of translational medicine · 2025Review
- Development and Validation of an Early Risk Prediction Model for Sepsis-Induced Coagulopathy Based on Machine Learning.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/HemostasisArticle
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of Monocyte Distribution Width (MDW) in predicting sepsis outcomes in emergency department (ED) patients compared to other hematologic parameters and vital signs, and to determine whether routine parameters could substitute MDW in machine learning models.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of data from 10,229 ED patients admitted to a large regional safety-net hospital in Cleveland, Ohio who had suspected infections and developed sepsis-associated poor outcomes. We developed a new analytical framework consisting of seven data models and an ensemble of high accuracy machine learning (ML) algorithms (accuracy values ranging from 0.83 to 0.90) to predict sepsis-associated poor outcomes (3-day intensive care unit stay or death). Local Interpretable Model-Agnostic Explanation (LIME) and Shapley Additive Value (SHAP) interpretability methods were utilized to assess the contributions of individual hematologic parameters.
resultsThe ML interpretability analysis indicated that the predictive value of MDW is significantly reduced when other hematological parameters and vital signs are considered. The results suggest that complete blood count with differential (CBD-DIFF) alongside vital signs can effectively replace MDW in high accuracy machine learning algorithms for screening poor outcome associated with sepsis.
conclusionMDW, although a newly approved biomarker for sepsis, does not significantly enhance prediction models when combined with routinely available parameters and vital signs. Hospitals, especially those with resource constraints, can rely on existing parameters with high accuracy machine learning models to predict sepsis outcomes effectively, thereby reducing the need for specialized tests like MDW.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.